Journal of Controversial Ideas

[Parasaurolophus]

As you know, I think you're wrong. But rather than squabble about that--which, again, is not the point--how about we perform a slightly different exercise? You tell me what kinds of ideas you would agree are legitimately controversial, and I'll try to find published examples for you from philosophy (since this is a philosophy journal).

The point isn't that controversial stuff hasn't been published in other journals.

Regardless, even as late as 2013 we had not developed the level of online frontier justice that we have in the post-Trump era.  2021 is a whole new doxgame.

Maybe JCI is an outlet for people who do not want to be part of the BFD that controversial statements can create.  Kudos to those who are strong enough to stand up to public scrutiny and opprobrium, but there are lots of good reasons not to.

Exactly. If the fear of the possibility of getting destroyed for publishing something prevents someone publishing, then that undermines the principles of academic investigation.

Since no-one can know in advance how much response, if any, their article will create, it's good that people can err on the side of caution and publish safely, rather than not publish at all.

If we concede that controversial stuff gets published all the time, then I don't see what your point could be. If this kind of stuff gets published a lot, then that seems like a good prima facie indication (at least absent further evidence) that plenty of people are not being silenced and can publish safely with relative ease.

So what's left of your point?

[marshwiggle]

If the fear of the possibility of getting destroyed for publishing something prevents someone publishing, then that undermines the principles of academic investigation.

Since no-one can know in advance how much response, if any, their article will create, it's good that people can err on the side of caution and publish safely, rather than not publish at all.

If we concede that controversial stuff gets published all the time, then I don't see what your point could be. If this kind of stuff gets published a lot, then that seems like a good prima facie indication (at least absent further evidence) that plenty of people are not being silenced and can publish safely with relative ease.

So what's left of your point?

My point is that it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is whether enough people who want to publish things they feel may be labelled "controversial" think that this sort of option is necessary. If they don't then the journal will die out. If they do, it doesn't matter that they might have gotten published somewhere else.

(It's like the idea of justice not only being done, but being seen to be done. Whether people could publish elsewhere is not the issue; it's whether they perceive that they can publish elsewhere.)

[Parasaurolophus]

If the fear of the possibility of getting destroyed for publishing something prevents someone publishing, then that undermines the principles of academic investigation.

Since no-one can know in advance how much response, if any, their article will create, it's good that people can err on the side of caution and publish safely, rather than not publish at all.

If we concede that controversial stuff gets published all the time, then I don't see what your point could be. If this kind of stuff gets published a lot, then that seems like a good prima facie indication (at least absent further evidence) that plenty of people are not being silenced and can publish safely with relative ease.

So what's left of your point?

My point is that it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is whether enough people who want to publish things they feel may be labelled "controversial" think that this sort of option is necessary. If they don't then the journal will die out. If they do, it doesn't matter that they might have gotten published somewhere else.

(It's like the idea of justice not only being done, but being seen to be done. Whether people could publish elsewhere is not the issue; it's whether they perceive that they can publish elsewhere.)

Then the question is whose opinion it is that counts here. There is indeed a vocal minority who think their speech is being suppressed and if only they had some sort of special outlet then maybe that wouldn't be true. (They're wrong, but that's another matter.) But if there's a proliferation of controversial stuff being published, I would think that's a good indication, absent evidence to the contrary, that lots of people do think it's possible to publish controversial stuff.

It's absolutely true, for instance, that Jeff Meldrum has had a hard time publishing his work on Bigfoot in top outlets. That's not much of an indication that 'controversial' work is suppressed in the fields of anatomy and anthropology, however.

[Puget]

It's absolutely true, for instance, that Jeff Meldrum has had a hard time publishing his work on Bigfoot in top outlets. That's not much of an indication that 'controversial' work is suppressed in the fields of anatomy and anthropology, however.

I think a key difference between the sciences and humanities here is that in the sciences you have to bring your data, so controversies tend to be about the interpretation or applications of the data, rather than the sorts of arguments considered controversial here. That grounding in the data is helpful, because we are then, to use this example, not having a debate about the premise or desirability of Bigfoot, but rather adjudicating whether there is convincing evidence for Bigfoot, which is much more concrete. We can also apply the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" maxim and require extra evidence from someone claiming Bigfoot is inhabiting the forest given the priors one should have against that.

The result is that while there is lots of vigorous debate (as there should be), it rarely gets personal or acrimonious (when it does, it is usually about process--e.g., accusations of p-hacking or otherwise willfully misrepresenting findings). I can think of only a few examples of actual "controversial" ideas in psychology these days in the sense "controversial" is used here. One would be the idea that there are *group* (NOT individual, which as I noted is uncontroversial) genetic differences that lead to group differences in IQ or other traits. In this case I think the (very, very few) people arguing for that position are (a) not interpreting the data correctly, and (b) doing so willfully. Any other example I can think of is around applications or research priorities rather than the actual science-- for example, there are advocates who very strongly feel that research aimed at preventing or treating autism is wrong because it is a neural atypicality that should be valued rather than a disorder.

[Wahoo Redux]

there are advocates who very strongly feel that research aimed at preventing or treating autism is wrong because it is a neural atypicality that should be valued rather than a disorder.

Interesting.  We should maybe leave high functioning individuals with autism alone, but don't individuals with severe autism have trouble functioning in society?

[Puget]

there are advocates who very strongly feel that research aimed at preventing or treating autism is wrong because it is a neural atypicality that should be valued rather than a disorder.

Interesting.  We should maybe leave high functioning individuals with autism alone, but don't individuals with severe autism have trouble functioning in society?

Yes, and that's what makes that position very controversial (after all, those with low functioning ASD can't advocate for themselves, and might feel very differently about it), but I see that as controversy about policy (they would say that means society should adapt not the individual) rather than science per se. Likewise, many in the Deaf community are opposed to cochlear implants-- it's not that they dispute the fact that they allow people to function better in a hearing world, they just don't think they should have to or that that is necessarily a good goal (they see Deafness as a culture, not a disability). These certainly are controversies, but are more sociological or philosophical (what is a good life?) than scientific in nature.

[Caracal]

there are advocates who very strongly feel that research aimed at preventing or treating autism is wrong because it is a neural atypicality that should be valued rather than a disorder.

Interesting.  We should maybe leave high functioning individuals with autism alone, but don't individuals with severe autism have trouble functioning in society?

Yes, and that's what makes that position very controversial (after all, those with low functioning ASD can't advocate for themselves, and might feel very differently about it), but I see that as controversy about policy (they would say that means society should adapt not the individual) rather than science per se. Likewise, many in the Deaf community are opposed to cochlear implants-- it's not that they dispute the fact that they allow people to function better in a hearing world, they just don't think they should have to or that that is necessarily a good goal (they see Deafness as a culture, not a disability). These certainly are controversies, but are more sociological or philosophical (what is a good life?) than scientific in nature.

Yeah, was going to say much the same thing. I suppose it depends on what you mean by treatment. I can certainly see the argument that the best way to help people anywhere on the autism spectrum is to try to give them the tools to help them manage their lives rather than viewing autism as a defect.

In a very different version of neuro-diversity interventions, a lot of the organizational tutoring I got for ADHD as a kid was useless at best because it was designed to get me to do things I just can't do. You can give me as many color coded folders as you want, but it isn't going to keep my bag from looking like a paper bomb went off.

[marshwiggle]

there are advocates who very strongly feel that research aimed at preventing or treating autism is wrong because it is a neural atypicality that should be valued rather than a disorder.

Interesting.  We should maybe leave high functioning individuals with autism alone, but don't individuals with severe autism have trouble functioning in society?

Yes, and that's what makes that position very controversial (after all, those with low functioning ASD can't advocate for themselves, and might feel very differently about it), but I see that as controversy about policy (they would say that means society should adapt not the individual) rather than science per se. Likewise, many in the Deaf community are opposed to cochlear implants-- it's not that they dispute the fact that they allow people to function better in a hearing world, they just don't think they should have to or that that is necessarily a good goal (they see Deafness as a culture, not a disability). These certainly are controversies, but are more sociological or philosophical (what is a good life?) than scientific in nature.

Yeah, was going to say much the same thing. I suppose it depends on what you mean by treatment. I can certainly see the argument that the best way to help people anywhere on the autism spectrum is to try to give them the tools to help them manage their lives rather than viewing autism as a defect.

So how easy is it for psychologists to use the term "gender dysphoria" these days?

[bio-nonymous]

I guess the innovation here is that you can publish under a pseudonym?... a piece published here is unlikely to get any attention since the journal is positioning itself as an outlet for fringe ideas.

I imagine it's for the same reasons we use pseudonyms here.  People say all sorts of things about their colleagues and colleges which might not get them fired (or might, actually) but would go over poorly in their real-world lives.

I try not to write anything that I would really, really not want anyone to associate with me. Generally its a bad idea to assume anything is actually anonymous.

^+100. Words of wisdom to live by, especially for those not tenured-->if you like your job anyway...